Cultural styles, relationship schemas, and prejudice against out-groups.

Two studies provide evidence that Latins (i.e., Mexicans and Mexican Americans) are guided by a concern with socioemotional aspects of workplace relations to a far greater degree than are Anglo-Americans. The focus on socioemotional considerations results in Latins having a relatively greater preference for workgroups having a strong interpersonal orientation. Preferred relational style had a far greater impact on preferences for workgroups and judgments about their likely success than did the ethnic composition of the workgroups for both Latins and Anglo-Americans. Evidence that the two groups differ markedly in relational schemas comes from examination of suggestions about how group performance could be improved, judgments about whether a focus on socioemotional concerns necessarily entails a reduction in task focus, and recall for socioemotional aspects of workgroup interactions. Implications for the dynamics of intercultural contact are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Protestant relational ideology and (in)attention to relational cues in work settings.

M. Weber (1947) proposed that exposure to Calvinist Protestantism is associated with limited attention to relational concerns in work settings. Two experiments provide support for this proposition. Study 1 showed that Protestant European Americans raised in traditions of Calvinism were less attentive to affect in spoken words when primed with a work context relative to a nonwork context, and to participants raised as Catholics in either context. Study 2 used an unconscious mimicry paradigm to measure relational focus and showed that within a work setting, male Protestants mimicked a confederate's foot shaking less than male non-Protestants and women in either group. Within a nonwork setting, male Protestants mimicked more and did not differ from male non-Protestants. Women showed greater mimicry than men. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Conversing across cultures: East-West communication styles in work and nonwork contexts.

Four experiments provided evidence that East-West differences in attention to indirect meaning are more pronounced in work settings compared with nonwork settings as suggested by prior research on Protestant relational ideology. Study 1 compared errors in interpreting indirect messages in work and nonwork contexts across three cultures. Studies 2 and 3 examined differences in self-reported indirectness with coworkers versus nonwork acquaintances across three cultures controlling for variation in individualism- collectivism. Study 4 examined self-reported indirectness in bicultural managers, and experimentally manipulated the salience of Western versus Eastern culture. The results showed that Americans, but not East Asians, were less attentive to indirect cues in work than nonwork settings and that East-West differences in indirectness were greater in work than nonwork settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Performance in intercultural interactions at work: Cross-cultural differences in response to behavioral mirroring.

This article examines how performance in intercultural workplace interactions can be compromised even in the absence of overt prejudice. The authors show that individuals respond differently to nonverbal behavioral mirroring cues exhibited in workplace interactions, depending on their cultural group membership. In a field study with experienced managers, U.S. Anglos and U.S. Latinos interacted with a confederate who, unbeknownst to the participant, engaged (or not) in behavioral mirroring. Results show that the level of the confederate's mirroring differentially affected Latinos' state anxiety, but not Anglos' state anxiety, as well as actual performance in the interaction. Two additional laboratory experiments provide further evidence of the interactive relationship of behavioral mirroring and cultural group membership on evaluations of workplace interactions. Implications for intercultural interactions and research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

“What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites' reactions to multiculturalism.

A 5-study investigation of reactions of dominant group members (i.e., White Americans) to diversity (relative to racial minority reactions) provides evidence of implicit and explicit associations between multiculturalism and exclusion and of a relationship between perceived exclusion and reactions to diversity. In Study 1, Whites but not racial minorities were faster in an implicit association task at pairing multiculturalism with exclusion than with inclusion. This association diminished in Study 2 through a subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups, including European Americans. In Study 3, in a “Me/Not Me” task, Whites were less likely than minorities to pair multiculturalism concepts with the self and were slower in responding to multiculturalism concepts. Furthermore, associating multiculturalism with the self (Study 3) or feeling included in organizational diversity (Study 4) predicted Whites' endorsement of diversity and also accounted for the oft-cited group status difference in support for diversity initiatives. Study 5 showed that individual differences in need to belong moderated Whites' interest in working for organizations that espouse a multicultural versus a color-blind approach to diversity, with individuals higher in need to belong less attracted to organizations with a multicultural approach. Overall, results show that the purportedly “inclusive” ideology of multiculturalism is not perceived as such by Whites. This may, in part, account for their lower support for diversity efforts in education and work settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)